Exploring Anesthesia Provider Preferences for Precision Feedback: Preference Elicitation Study.

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES JMIR Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.2196/54071
Zach Landis-Lewis, Chris A Andrews, Colin A Gross, Charles P Friedman, Nirav J Shah
{"title":"Exploring Anesthesia Provider Preferences for Precision Feedback: Preference Elicitation Study.","authors":"Zach Landis-Lewis, Chris A Andrews, Colin A Gross, Charles P Friedman, Nirav J Shah","doi":"10.2196/54071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health care professionals must learn continuously as a core part of their work. As the rate of knowledge production in biomedicine increases, better support for health care professionals' continuous learning is needed. In health systems, feedback is pervasive and is widely considered to be essential for learning that drives improvement. Clinical quality dashboards are one widely deployed approach to delivering feedback, but engagement with these systems is commonly low, reflecting a limited understanding of how to improve the effectiveness of feedback about health care. When coaches and facilitators deliver feedback for improving performance, they aim to be responsive to the recipient's motivations, information needs, and preferences. However, such functionality is largely missing from dashboards and feedback reports. Precision feedback is the delivery of high-value, motivating performance information that is prioritized based on its motivational potential for a specific recipient, including their needs and preferences. Anesthesia care offers a clinical domain with high-quality performance data and an abundance of evidence-based quality metrics.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to explore anesthesia provider preferences for precision feedback.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a test set of precision feedback messages with balanced characteristics across 4 performance scenarios. We created an experimental design to expose participants to contrasting message versions. We recruited anesthesia providers and elicited their preferences through analysis of the content of preferred messages. Participants additionally rated their perceived benefit of preferred messages to clinical practice on a 5-point Likert scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We elicited preferences and feedback message benefit ratings from 35 participants. Preferences were diverse across participants but largely consistent within participants. Participants' preferences were consistent for message temporality (α=.85) and display format (α=.80). Ratings of participants' perceived benefit to clinical practice of preferred messages were high (mean rating 4.27, SD 0.77).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Health care professionals exhibited diverse yet internally consistent preferences for precision feedback across a set of performance scenarios, while also giving messages high ratings of perceived benefit. A \"one-size-fits-most approach\" to performance feedback delivery would not appear to satisfy these preferences. Precision feedback systems may hold potential to improve support for health care professionals' continuous learning by accommodating feedback preferences.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":"10 ","pages":"e54071"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11185285/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/54071","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Health care professionals must learn continuously as a core part of their work. As the rate of knowledge production in biomedicine increases, better support for health care professionals' continuous learning is needed. In health systems, feedback is pervasive and is widely considered to be essential for learning that drives improvement. Clinical quality dashboards are one widely deployed approach to delivering feedback, but engagement with these systems is commonly low, reflecting a limited understanding of how to improve the effectiveness of feedback about health care. When coaches and facilitators deliver feedback for improving performance, they aim to be responsive to the recipient's motivations, information needs, and preferences. However, such functionality is largely missing from dashboards and feedback reports. Precision feedback is the delivery of high-value, motivating performance information that is prioritized based on its motivational potential for a specific recipient, including their needs and preferences. Anesthesia care offers a clinical domain with high-quality performance data and an abundance of evidence-based quality metrics.

Objective: The objective of this study is to explore anesthesia provider preferences for precision feedback.

Methods: We developed a test set of precision feedback messages with balanced characteristics across 4 performance scenarios. We created an experimental design to expose participants to contrasting message versions. We recruited anesthesia providers and elicited their preferences through analysis of the content of preferred messages. Participants additionally rated their perceived benefit of preferred messages to clinical practice on a 5-point Likert scale.

Results: We elicited preferences and feedback message benefit ratings from 35 participants. Preferences were diverse across participants but largely consistent within participants. Participants' preferences were consistent for message temporality (α=.85) and display format (α=.80). Ratings of participants' perceived benefit to clinical practice of preferred messages were high (mean rating 4.27, SD 0.77).

Conclusions: Health care professionals exhibited diverse yet internally consistent preferences for precision feedback across a set of performance scenarios, while also giving messages high ratings of perceived benefit. A "one-size-fits-most approach" to performance feedback delivery would not appear to satisfy these preferences. Precision feedback systems may hold potential to improve support for health care professionals' continuous learning by accommodating feedback preferences.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索麻醉师对精确反馈的偏好:偏好激发研究。
背景:医护人员必须不断学习,这是他们工作的核心部分。随着生物医学知识生产率的提高,需要为医护人员的持续学习提供更好的支持。在医疗系统中,反馈无处不在,而且被普遍认为是推动改进的学习所必不可少的。临床质量仪表板是一种广泛应用的提供反馈的方法,但这些系统的参与度普遍较低,反映出人们对如何提高医疗保健反馈的有效性了解有限。当辅导员和促进者为提高绩效提供反馈时,他们的目标是对接收者的动机、信息需求和偏好做出回应。然而,仪表盘和反馈报告在很大程度上缺少此类功能。精准反馈是指提供高价值的、具有激励作用的绩效信息,这些信息的优先级取决于其对特定接收者的激励潜力,包括他们的需求和偏好。麻醉护理是一个拥有高质量绩效数据和大量循证质量指标的临床领域:本研究旨在探索麻醉服务提供者对精准反馈的偏好:方法:我们开发了一套精确反馈信息测试集,该测试集在 4 种绩效情景中具有均衡的特征。我们创建了一个实验设计,让参与者接触对比鲜明的信息版本。我们招募了麻醉提供者,并通过分析首选信息的内容来了解他们的偏好。此外,参与者还用 5 点李克特量表对首选信息给临床实践带来的益处进行评分:结果:我们从 35 位参与者那里获得了偏好和反馈信息的收益评级。不同参与者的偏好各不相同,但参与者内部的偏好基本一致。参与者对信息时间性(α=.85)和显示格式(α=.80)的偏好是一致的。参与者对首选信息对临床实践的益处的评分很高(平均评分 4.27,标准差 0.77):结论:医护人员在一系列绩效情景中表现出了对精确反馈的不同但内在一致的偏好,同时对信息的感知效益也给予了很高的评价。"一刀切 "的绩效反馈方式似乎无法满足这些偏好。精确反馈系统可以通过满足反馈偏好来提高对医护人员持续学习的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Practical Recommendations for Navigating Digital Tools in Hospitals: Qualitative Interview Study. Leveraging Open-Source Large Language Models for Data Augmentation in Hospital Staff Surveys: Mixed Methods Study. Virtual Reality Simulation in Undergraduate Health Care Education Programs: Usability Study. Correction: Psychological Safety Competency Training During the Clinical Internship From the Perspective of Health Care Trainee Mentors in 11 Pan-European Countries: Mixed Methods Observational Study. ChatGPT-4 Omni Performance in USMLE Disciplines and Clinical Skills: Comparative Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1